[Lush]

Sophia, I do agree that Eowyn is unbalanced, but so are her times. She seems to echo the state of her realm.

Lyta, I think you've about hit the nail on the head in regards to Eowyn's emotional state. If Theoden wasn't lulled into near-madness by the arts of Saruman, Eowyn would not have been stuck playing a dry-nurse; if Grima was denied his influence in Theoden's land, Eowyn probably would not have been in the state of despair that she was by the time she met Aragorn. From then on, things progressed rather quickly. I think if Eowyn was not wounded in battle, she was likely to have gone ahead with Aragorn's army to the Black Gate (though then she wouldn't have had the time to be wooed by Faramir! Ah!), whether she was wanted or not (she was a stubborn girl). Unbalanced? You bet she was. But that doesn't negate the validity of her impact on the story, or her character traits.

And for those of you women who are disappointed in those of us who prefer it the way it is, sans females, I'm terribly sorry but I'm quite willing to forfeit my 'PC-ness' to maintain this work the way it was originally presented. I personally don't need a strong female character in every tale I read - I know strong females exist (and like to think myself one of them) and therefore do not need every author to include one in order to feel validated. I think it's more a measure of strength to appreciate a literary work on its own merit without needing an author to give you someone to identify with and thus tell you how strong you are. That's what Mary Sue fan fiction is for.

Ara, your complaint would be legitimate, if it wasn't for the fact that most of us on this thread are not arguing that the fact that there were no chicks in the Fellowship was "bad." I personally just disagree with some of the logic used to back up Tolkien's choice: statements akin to "that would have brought sex into the whole thing" are, well, sexist. If so many of Tolkien's characters are as noble and idealised as we say they are, I doubt he would have had a problem with making that seem believable, if only he could write a believable central female character in general. I don't recall myself, or anyone else posting that "because there were no females in the Fellowship, that was a bad thing." Au contraire. It was a good thing, but not because of some of the reasons being listed.

I can't help but feel the same pressure here as I have encountered in my life with the career vs. family issue. If I stay home with my family, I'm spitting in the face of the ERA and striking a blow against all womankind. If I focus on my career and drive for success I'm neglecting my family and imperiling the future of America with my wild offspring. By the same token the discussion here seems to veer off every now and then to, 'if you don't think a female in the fellowship would have worked, you're betraying womankind.' Nonsense.

I'm sorry that this thread has affected you on such a personal level, but it affects me too. That's part of being a woman in the modern world today: society sends us mixed messages. But there is nobody on this thread who has called anyone else a betrayer of womankind, this thread is rather more of a backlash against bad fan fiction coloured by a general distaste of the concept of the "f" word (feminism) and what it stands for (I apologize to Ruler I am misinterpreting or forgetting something here).

And what I think I, and a few other members are trying to say is that its ok to be annoyed with the excess of political correctness and "feminazism" as related to Tolkien's work, but the sweeping generalizations that are taking place in the logical progression of this thread are disagreeable to us.

[ March 23, 2003: Message edited by: Lush ]